The basic idea suggested was to have visitors to an art museum get tokens for each room they visit, and distribute those into collection boxes for each painting they like, putting in as few or as many as they like. The artists would then receive some compensation according to the monthly token count. There was more to the scheme, of course, but that is the basic outline.

Apart from the appeal to artists, there is something else that makes this an interesting plan. It is that we would see which “art” is truly appreciated by the public and which is not. In fact, it might be fun for the museum to have an “unknown artist” day, when the paintings are not labeled, and the artists signatures covered. Throw in some decent amateur paintings and we could see if the masters are really enjoyed that much more by viewers, or if the name is a big part of what brings them in.

In another post the author looked at the concept of “weighted democracy,” in which a political literacy test would determine the weight of each citizen’s vote. This one generated a few responses, as you might guess, and there are some potential problems with the approach. But whether or not the idea is worth implementing or not, I love to see out-of-the-box thinking like this.

Democracy is not some sacred idea. It might be the best of the many imperfect ways to organize political power and governance, but then again, we have seen historical examples of terrible leaders being elected to do terrible things, and no majority makes something right by their mere common desire. So perhaps we need some new kind of democracy, but maybe we also need to look for a better system to replace it altogether. I’m not sure what that could be, but it never hurts to consider new ideas.

Loved the blog so far. I hope thinkspherical.wordpress.com/ will be around for a while.

“The specific methods, materials, and devices used to solve practical problems.”

“Practical” is a tricky word though. For example, the “practical” solution to the problem of designing a better weapon could be entirely counterproductive to the “practical” goal of peace on Earth. A practical technology for creating personal wealth may take one further from the goals one imagined that wealth would accomplish. Agricultural technologies can sometimes create more food while making it less healthy for us.

Our technologies are often used to accomplish things that are not good for us, because we start not with basic values, but with assumptions based on unexamined desires. For example, we decide that “more money” is good, and then design a technology for achieving that which ignores other, possibly more important values. It seems clear that money can be used for good purposes, but it is also clear that it is often used for bad purposes. Another example: Some argue that we create fantastic weapons which do not actually increase our safety.

Technology can be good and useful, or incredibly destructive. With that in mind, here’s a new idea: Spirituality may be the ultimate technology.

Through the methods, materials, and devices of spirituality we can discover what is most important. Isn’t that is the most practical problem which needs solving? Otherwise we pursue what is not important and perhaps even what is most destructive of true value. Achieving mistaken goals is not a “practical.” But once we have a better grasp of what really needs to be done and what is really of value, all other technologies serve us more faithfully and provide more real value.

The ultimate technology? Maybe. Here are a few questions to get you thinking about this…

1. What are the “methods, materials, and devices of spirituality?”

2. How does this idea fit with various religions?

3. Is it possible that “spiritual training” (learning to use the technology) is more important than spiritual beliefs?

4. If separated from religion, is what we call spirituality really just a form of psychological training?

1. We know how de-motivating it can be to dwell on past mistakes, but it can be a hard habit to break. If there is a specific mistake that you keep thinking about, take time to sit down and make a note of every lesson you learned from that mistake. Then tell yourself that you have learned what you need to, so you can drop the matter. If it pops up again in your mind, remind yourself that you don’t need to think about it any longer, and immediately start concentrating on something more productive.

2. Praise people when they do well. Doing so creates a different atmosphere that not only helps that person feel better about himself, but makes you feel better as well. It also subconsciously motivates you to do praiseworthy things. Look for an opportunity to praise someone for a job well done today.

3. Start developing the habits of courage. Fear is just an emotion, but taking advice from your fears is a problem. The more you do it, the more of a habit it becomes. Fortunately, the opposite is also true. Do what needs to be done when faced with any fear, large or small, and it will become a habit that changes your life.

4. Complaining is not only a waste of energy, but a obstacle to seeing what can be done and doing it. If things could not be different, there is no point to complaining, and it sucks away your productive energy. If things can be different, think about how to change them instead of complaining. Watch yourself today, and at the first hint of a complaint, however subtle, immediately turn your thinking in a more productive direction.

5. Make “problems” into adventure stories. A problem is often defined by our interior dialog about it. Think “overwhelming” enough, and it starts to feel that way. Why not think about how you’ll look back on the problem when you have overcome it? See yourself telling the story as an adventure. Try this and you’ll find that it is far more motivating than worrying.

6. Practice being a good listener. It doesn’t necessarily come naturally. Keep quiet while others are speaking, and speak up only to ask relevant questions, so they can better explain whatever their point is. This practice will not only let you learn more (you already know what you have to say), but will help you get along better with people.

7. Make your major goals into small steps. This makes them easier to act on and accomplish. For example, if you want to save for retirement, their are steps you can take today. You could open a savings account, buy a book on investing, or make a form to track your savings. Write down many small steps that will carry you towards your goals.

8. Think of something you are looking forward to as soon as you wake up. This makes it easier to get excited about the day, and therefore easier to get out of bed.

9. Watch out for short-term thinking. When parents give their children candy or other sweets to quiet them, they’re teaching their kids to whine and cry for rewards. Soon they suffer the consequences of their short-term thinking, because the world at large offers little to those who whine and complain. We do the same with ourselves when we take our “candy,” without looking at the whole picture. I’m sure you can see how debt problems, wrecked relationships, unhealthy bodies, and more result from this. Consider the long-term consequences (good and bad) of the things you do today.

I won’t offer these kinds of general tips for life very often, but if you have your own to add to the list, feel free to do so in the comment area below.

One man says that business needs to be heavily regulated and taxed for the good of society. Another says that this leads to less economic growth and therefore more poverty. They each have their arguments and make them, setting them more firmly in their minds as they do battle. No minds are changed, as is common in such circumstances.

Had each actually allowed for the possibility that the other saw something real, they might have found common ground and new understandings. Perhaps the first knew of massive corruption in corporations, the cost of which was passed on to taxpayers. The second may have learned something new, and then pointed out that much of the corruption was actually due to regulations that favored corporations, teaching the other to see from another perspective.

We argue from what we see, and since we generally continue to “see” different evidence from our own experiences, nobody wins. On the other hand if I shut up and listen to what you have to say, my mind might become more powerful with the addition of your ideas and knowledge. There is no guarantee this will happen, but I know that it rarely happens from listening to my own ideas over and over, right? Paying attention to what the other person is saying is the better way to learn and to increase the power of one’s thinking.

Why argue? What does it accomplish? Here are some more questions to ponder:

1. How often have you actually changed a person’s mind through direct ideological confrontation and argument?

2. When you hear a position you disagree with, do you normally start arguing against it or do you first ask the person why he or she holds the position, and what evidence they have?

3. When is the last time you listened to an someone explain something that was contradictory to a strong belief of yours–without arguing or ignoring them?

4. Certainly there are times when arguing is appropriate, so when are these times?

China still has a lot of areas which need to and will be updated to the most modern technology. They will eventually have tractors for all farms, for example. Because of the potential there and the lower base they are starting from (a tractor can instantly double output versus human power), it is virtually inevitable that within a few decades they’ll be at least half as productive as the United States.

Half as productive? That doesn’t sound like much, but it suggests a per capita GDP (gross domestic product) of $23,000 (half of the U.S. per capita GDP in 2008). Multiply that times a population of 1.33 billion people and they’ll have an economy of 30.6 trillion dollars, more than double the size of the United States economy (13.8 trillion as this is written). It is basic math. If each person produces only half as much but there are four times as many people, total production will be twice as high.

A larger economy means more potential military power, since a bigger economy means more potential tax revenue to buy more weapons. It’s assumed by many that it is a bad thing for a country to lose its dominant position as a world power, but this isn’t proven by history. The British Empire was lost, and afterwards the British people became richer as individuals than ever before. Maintaining an empire costs money.

Both India and China will be larger powers than the United States at some point in this century. But those of us who live here don’t necessarily lose anything important from the coming shifts in power. That is, unless our fear of those changes causes us to pursue expensive and dangerous policies which try to prevent the inevitable. A better plan: Live peacefully and prosper!

Here are some questions to ponder, to get you thinking about what it means for the United States to no longer be the primary world power:

1. When the U.S. is no longer the most powerful country militarily, will the people be at greater risk of wars or a loss of freedom?

2. Are there things we could do develop a healthier economy based on the coming changes?

3. What can we do individually to prepare for the changes to come?

You see, though these are national elections, meant to elect those who make laws for the whole nation, the representatives are elected to serve regional interests–a big reason we have pork barrel spending and related problems. With the right changes, we could have local officials to handle local issues, state lawmakers look out for the interests of the state, and national legislators serve the whole nation.

As it is now, there can be millions of people who share common political beliefs, yet never have a representative in Washington. This happens if they are neither Republicans nor Democrats, and they are spread across the nation. A candidate outside the two parties could not be elected even if 10% of the people in a state voted for him. This suggests that tens of millions of people in the country could not ever have political representation unless they all chose to move to one state.

My suggestion? Anyone who can get 400,000 signatures of registered voters designating him or her as a representative can go to Washington and represent those voters. As voters we get to sign for one each six years. By the way, there might be 4 million people who share some of my basic concerns, and we can get no true representation now, even if we were organized. Under this new system we could have ten representatives.

Here are a few questions to consider about political representation and how we might actually achieve it:

1. Should we have districts based on geography, which encourage representation of petty local interests over political ideals?

2. Apart from the system I recommend above, what other ways could we design a democracy to have more representation of peoples beliefs and core values rather than representation of matters that are purely local?

3. If nobody I ever vote for gets into the national government, how am I in any way represented any more than those who broke from England and founded this country because of “taxation without representation?”

4. If I do not have any interest in having special laws to benefit primarily the district in which I live, do I have no right to representation on any other basis?

Suppose a man went almost every day to the same bad movie, even though he did not enjoy it. Some people would laugh at this, or say the man had a mental problem. But many of us revisit our own terrible internal movies again and again.

We justify this, perhaps as “learning from our mistakes so we don’t make them again,” even though this doesn’t seem to be the result. We might feel that by dwelling on our past we can “pay” some price that absolves our guilt (wouldn’t simply not doing it again be a better way?). We may even feel that we can somehow “fix” our problems by torturing ourselves with bad memories and imagined scenarios.

For all of our excuses and justifications, we don’t get those kind of positive results. Nor can we think of a single case where we have seen another person improve their life by focusing on their disturbing “mental movies.” In fact, we discourage our own friends from such “dwelling on the past,” or “imagining all the things that can go wrong.” Yet many of us still walk into that theater day after day.

Three Questions

1. Do you ever run memories through your mind only to feel the regrets again?

2. Is it possible that you can choose not to do that?

3. Justification is not causation, so why do we actually return to our bad “movies,” and what does that suggest about how to stop?

“The new human species is one that begins to engineer the evolution of viruses, plants, animals, and itself. As we do that, Darwin’s rules get significantly bent, and sometimes even broken. By taking direct and deliberate control over our evolution, we are living in a world where we are modifying stuff according to our desires.

If you turned off the electricity in the United States, you would see millions of people die quickly, because they wouldn’t have asthma medications, respirators, insulin, a whole host of things we invented to prevent people from dying. Eventually, we get to the point where evolution is guided by what we’re engineering. That’s a big deal. Today’s plastic surgery is going to seem tame compared to what’s coming.”

Enriquez points out that although at this pint we are almost identical to Neanderthals genetically, that can change quickly. DNA sequencing technology and other science is advancing at a faster and faster pace. He warns that because science is close to sequencing 10,000 human genomes, we may soon have to deal with the biological fact of variation among groups of people, and the resulting ethical considerations (do we want to know which groups are superior or inferior in this or that aspect, and what do we do with that information?).

In regards to the speed at which economic changes can happen, Enriquez says;

“In the industrial revolution, it took a lifetime to build enough industry to double the wealth of a country. In the knowledge revolution, you can build billion-dollar companies with 20 people very quickly. The implication is that you can double the wealth of a country very quickly. In Korea in 1975, people had one-fifth of the income of Mexicans, and today they have five times more. Even the poorest places can generate wealth quickly.”

It is fascinating to think that if we have a rational framework for change, we can make huge advances in health and economics in the span of a generation or two. A new human species? That may be a ways off. But a radically new world to live in may not be that far away, for better or worse.

The tendency to create and defend a ‘self” clearly gets in the way of the most powerful and objective thinking. Consider the fact that we can often predict some people’s behavior better than they can themselves. Sally will be late, though she thinks she’ll be on time. Tom is excited about the new get-rich-quick MLM business he’s in, but his friends all think he’ll be out of it in a year–and they’re right. Their thinking is flawed when it comes to predicting their own behavior.

Of course this applies not just to other people. All of us are subject to this process of ego-thought. We don’t see things as clearly when they involve our self images. Your reaction might be “that’s not true in my case!” But that immediate reactive need to defend oneself shows how true it is. Wouldn’t a rational response be to say, “Hmm, do I have this problem? Do I distort things that pertain to my sense of self?”

Of course, it is possible that you have investigated this thoroughly and found that you are indeed the rare individual who is truly objective at all times. But unless you have actually done this “self work” and done it well, any quick “not me” is premature, and a great example of the forces that distort our view of reality whenever it touches on our view of ourselves.

Now, as I will often do with these posts meant to provoke thought, I will leave you with several questions:

1. In what areas is faulty thinking due to self image most likely to occur?

2. How can we recognize the effect and correct it in ourselves?

3. Is there some advantage to this thought-distortion?

A Cybernetic Brain -  Some speculation on the technology coming to a brain near you (the one behind your eyes).  (Brain Power News Blog)

Some Thoughts on Artificial Intelligence – How close are we, and what will it mean? (Increase Brainpower Website)

Mind Power Techniques – One specific one explained with an example.  (Brain Power News Blog)

Truly Radical Welfare Reform – This is an idea you probably haven’t heard of. (999 Ideas)

Fast Thinker – Are you a fast thinker? We all are at a level below consciosuness.  (Brain Power News Blog)

The Psychology of Bribery – Why do some cultures have more bribery than others?  (Brain Power News Blog)

Real or Imaginary – How do we distinguish between memories that are real and thoughts we once had?  (Brain Power News Blog)

Everyone Is Wrong (Even When They Are Right) – A look at the uncertainty of certainty. (My personal blog)

Are We Less Violent? – Steven Pinker says we are, but I wonder how we define this.  (Brain Power News Blog)

Learning Using Imagination – A technique to try today.  (Brain Power News Blog)

Fear and the Brain – What you can do to overcome the effects of fear on thinking. (Increase Brainpower Website)

You can also subscribe via your RSS reader to this and my other blogs (although the option is not yet available on some of the websites), so you’ll get the latest creative ideas posts right on your desktop.